Blair and Clarke at odds on detail of Terrorism Bill

Mr Blair defended the ‘compelling’ case put by the police

By Philip Johnston and George Jones

12:01AM BST 12 Oct 2005

Tony Blair's strategy on fighting terrorism was under renewed strain last night as the Government issued conflicting signals over the extent of new legislation aimed at smashing support networks for suicide bombers.

But while he was speaking at No 10, Charles Clarke, the Home Secretary, was telling MPs that he might be prepared to compromise over the time scale.

After producing several drafts and consulting opposition parties, the Home Office will today launch its Terrorism Bill containing a range of measures produced in response to the July suicide bombings in London.

Related Articles

It is aimed at making it easier for the police to arrest and question suspects who may have been plotting an attack but against whom insufficient evidence has been gathered to warrant a charge.

The Bill will also help the authorities crack down on extremist preachers who glorify atrocities or indirectly encourage terrorism. There will be new offences of making preparations for a terrorist act, distributing terrorist publications and undertaking terrorist training.

The most controversial measure is the proposed detention of suspects without charge for 90 days, which is equivalent to a six-month jail term. Opposition parties say the case for such a long period has not been made and the Law Society said it was tantamount to internment.

The Government says the police need the extra time because of the difficulties of gathering evidence from overseas and from encrypted computer programs.

Mr Blair said the police had put a strong case that it would be "irresponsible" to ignore.

"I am not saying that whatever the police say we have got to do it," he said. "That's not my case. If the police, charged with fighting terrorism in this country, say to me and to MPs, 'This is why we need it' and that case is a good and compelling case - as I find it is - then my duty is to do it, unless someone can come forward with a very good argument why their case is unsound."

He added: ''We need to make our country safe. You can't do it by the rules of the game we have at the moment: it's too complicated, too laborious; the police are hidebound by restrictions."

Mr Clarke, in evidence to the Commons home affairs select committee, also accepted the case for a three-month detention period but, unlike Mr Blair, he suggested that there was room for manoeuvre.

"I completely recognise there is a concern,'' he said. "Three months is not a God-given amount and that is why I indicated flexibility to deal with that in the proper way."

Mr Clarke said that a judge, possibly from the High Court, would need to give permission for every additional week that a suspect was held.

David Davis, the shadow home secretary, criticised the contradictory messages.

"The public expects, especially at this time of heightened terrorism, the Government to speak with one voice,'' he said. "The case for detention without charge for 90 days has yet to be made."

Most of the measures in the Bill were first outlined by Mr Blair at a press conference on Aug 5. But framing many of them in legislation robust enough to stand up to scrutiny in Parliament and in the courts has proved difficult.

Last week Mr Clarke significantly watered down plans to make the ''glorification'' of terrorist acts a criminal offence. It will now be a requirement for offenders to have a reasonable belief that what they say could induce others to commit terrorism.

However, it will not be necessary for the prosecution to prove intent, which legal experts said could, theoretically, have led to the prosecution of Cherie Blair for saying a few years ago that she could empathise with Palestinian suicide bombers.

Although Mr Clarke dismissed that as ''nonsense'', critics argue that the Government's definition of terrorism is so widely drawn that the new Bill risks creating a host of unintended consequences.